Are voters waking up from the 'Georgian Dream"? Days before local elections, Georgia's ruling coalition is faced with plummeting ratings and accusations of intimidation by political opponents.

Days before local elections, Georgia's ruling coalition is faced with plummeting ratings and accusations of intimidation of political opponents. Are voters about to wake up from the Georgian Dream? Joseph Alexander Smith reports from Tbilisi for commonspace.eu.

At a salon in central Tbilisi's leafy Vera district, the barber furiously snips away at my fringe. When I ask how he feels about the upcoming local elections, I catch him rolling his eyes in the mirror. "People are tired", he says. "Politicians just talk and do nothing." Then I press him further for an evaluation of the ruling Georgian Dream coalition's year and 8 months in power. "They've done nothing new ... all they've done is tear down what was there before. Voting won't change anything."

The brainchild of billionaire businessman Bidzina Ivanshivili, Georgian Dream pledged to unseat an entrenched and increasingly authoritarian United National Movement led by President Mikheil Saakashvili. The party quickly attracted other opposition forces into a coalition after its founding in April 2012 and despite numerous government attempts to quash the movement, including stripping Ivanishvili of his Georgian citizenship, the coalition won a landslide victory in parliamentary elections in October 2012. In November last year the party's candidate also took the presidency with 62% of the vote.

The Georgian Dream government has introduced some of the most socially-minded reforms in Georgia's post-Soviet history, increasing spending on health by 22% and making many basic services, such as hospital childbirth, free of charge. An agricultural voucher scheme has benefited thousands of farmers, and school books have been delivered to pupils free of charge. The National Statistics Office of Georgia reported a modest drop in unemployment rates in 2013.

But after nearly two years in power, the coalition is facing a slump in ratings and accusations of political repression by key partners ahead of important local self-government elections. For the first time, voters in a number of regional cities in Georgia will be electing a mayor. The heads of all municipalities (gamgebelis) will also be directly elected. With turnout expected to be lower than in parliamentary and presidential elections, some analysts see these elections as a litmus test of the ruling party's hold on power.

According to the results of an opinion survey conducted in April by the National Democratic Institute, key political figures from the ruling coalition have seen their ratings fall. While Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili saw his ratings fall by 5% since the last poll in November 2013, President Giorgi Margvelashvili plummeted to 46% from 72% last November. Ivanishvili, has suffered a 23% drop in approval ratings. By contrast, leader of the opposition UNM faction in parliament, Davit Bakradze, saw his ratings rise by 3% during the same period.

The government have also been accused of intimidating their political opposition. On Sunday, the US embassy in Tbilisi released a statement saying "we are increasingly concerned about ... allegations of government pressure on candidates to withdraw" in areas where the opposition have a chance of winning seats. Up to four hundred candidates dropped out of the race, although many have now re-joined the contest.

In the majority ethnic Azeri district of Marneuli, where the UNM enjoys significant support, the candidate for municipality head Akmamed Imamquliyev was disqualified for not meeting a two-year residency requirement. The Central Election Commission (CEC) upheld the decision, despite having ruled in favor of two Georgian Dream mayoral candidates when their eligibility was questioned for similar reasons in May. Tbilisi's City Court eventually re-instated Imamquliyev, but for some the episode is evidence of the government's growing intolerance of opposition.

"Georgian Dream is doing the same as the UNM did by trying to marginalize the opposition" says Kornely Kakachia, Professor of Political Science at Tbilisi State University, "and this isn't good for developing a stable and democratic political system." At a recent campaign rally, Prime Minister Gharibashvili told supporters that "we should get rid" of the opposition UNM from local government seats "once and for all". At a previous rally, the PM said that Georgian Dream wouldn't "allow the victory of any opposition force in any town or municipality".

Although the government has reiterated its commitment to a fair electoral process, many see this rhetoric as giving a green light for supporters to engage in violence against the opposition. There have already been violent clashes between Georgian Dream and UNM supporters in several places.

So, does any of this signify huge losses for Georgian Dream at the polls, or even the beginning of a political comeback for the UNM? Well, although the UNM enjoys support in some regional strongholds, Kakachia believes that in most of the country, the party is still "struggling for survival" and is unable to mount a serious political challenge to the ruling party.

"Georgian voters tend to vote against something, rather than for something" he says, and although "political parties have been trying to spin certain issues in order to polarize the pre-election environment and mobilize voters", expected low-turnout is likely to deliver a clear victory for the ruling party. In the NDI's April poll, 40% said they wouldn't vote if elections were held tomorrow.

Still, there is an element of unpredictability in these election, as in previous contests, which makes them hugely significant for the opposition. According to the same NDI poll, 19% of likely voters were unsure who they would vote for, with a further 8% refusing to answer. In the 2012 parliamentary elections this margin swung decisively in favor of Georgian Dream, but it is difficult to predict how the undecided will vote, or whether they will vote at all.

Ultimately, it is the opposition that has the biggest stake in the local elections, with these polls seen as laying the ground for the next parliamentary contest due in 2016. The UNM needs to hold on to its regional support bases and win enough local authority seats to be able to mobilize voters in two years' time. The same is true for smaller parties, who are eyeing seats in the next parliament.

For ex-parliament speaker Nino Burjanadze's Democratic Movement, which has allied with the Christian Democrats to contest the local elections, this vote represents an opportunity to overtake the UNM and become the second largest political force in the country. Having harnessed pro-Russian sympathies and recent discontent among conservatives over an anti-discrimination law seen as too liberal on gay rights, large gains for Burjanadze's party cannot be ruled out.

According to Kakachia, despite its troubles, the ruling coalition will likely "win by inertia." Despite best efforts, the cattle prod of political spin-doctoring seems unlikely to bring huge numbers to the ballot boxes this weekend. It seems that rather than finally waking up from the long Georgian Dream, voters have simply hit 'snooze'.

source: Joseph Alexander Smith is a free lance journalist based in Tbilisi. He contributed this report for commonspace.eu.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)